Why is it every article about "Historically high commodity prices" leaves out the "adjusted for inflation" value? A quick google search shows that cotton and indeed most commodity prices are far below their historical peaks in real terms once you account for inflation. Frankly I am sick and tired of every reputable news source falling prey to the money illusion (especially upsetting in a newspaper called The ECONOMIST). $1 in 1865 is not the same thing as $1 in 2012. Everyone knows that. Except writers apparently.

Clearly the Economist's ridiculously myopic understanding is clouding its so called "analysis".

The current export ban is primarily a result of the Chinese hoarding and stockpiling cotton to create buffer for their own domestic industry granting Chinese textile companies a way to insulate themselves from price volatility in the cotton market. Not to forget the fact that this is being done at the expense of the domestic indian market where stocks are low because most the cotton is being exported to the international market while the domestic textile industry is suffering from high input costs despite farmers producing a "surplus" this year!

Second, the ridiculous argument that an export ban would hurt the Indian farmer hold no water considering that it is the "cotton traders" who stand to make money hand over fist on rising cotton prices - not the farmers who will seen negligible profits! It is these "traders" who are hiding behind the Indian "farmer" and complaining about their "lost profits".

Lastly, it makes perfect sense to ban exports if the domestic situation is going to turn dire and domestic supply of cotton is going to be scare later in the year. Without a comfortable "reserve" like the Chinese, the Indian textile industry has only the international markets which are extremely volatile and therefore put the Indian textile industry at a distinct disadvantage compared to the Chinese textile industry that is insulated from these shocks. There are no international rules that say India must sacrifice its domestic industry at the altar of Chinese profits or the convenient of the international market!

Why doesn't the Economist actually hire educated people to write their articles and give us more informed analysis instead of regurgitating this myopic and juvenile analysis ?

Firstly, if the Indian textile industry is facing shortage of cotton, then they should do the same as what Chinese firms are doing. Buy and stock it for later use. If they cannot do and the government is trying to help them out, then the government should buy and stock cotton (its a temporary solution till the textile firms make up their own capacity - ideally textile companies can come together a form a storage company to buy and store cotton). Export ban is worst possible way out as it effectively makes the cotton farmers pay. Yes the cotton farmers. Do you think the traders who have once brunt their hands enter the market next year? They surely would be more circumspect. Which makes a cotton surplus market next year driving the prices significantly lower.

Also, if the farmer is seeing negligible margins, he will not grow cotton next year. Farmers are not fools nor do they need "well meaning civil society" to treat them like children. The farmers are not producing cotton to supply the Indian textile industry, but to make money.

Secondly, Chinese stockpiling is nothing wrong. They are doing what is required as per their national/domestic interest. I am not even sure its the Chinese government doing the stockpiling here.

If it were only "Chinese firms" that were maintaining a surplus inventory - nobody would care! It is the Chinese government that is maintaining a "reserve" over and above the industry inventory to give its manufacturers an advantage that is contrary to fair trade. Besides, this isn't just about the Chinese reserve, this is also about "hoarding" of raw cotton that is being shipped to Chinese ports and stored under bogus pretenses only to be later sold back on the international market as prices improve- this is patently illegal.

The excuse that the "cotton farmer will pay" carries absolutely no water because the cotton farmer sees negligible returns as it is compared to the international price of cotton. Further, the cotton farmer is also limited to the points of sale and the price they can sell their produce! The "only profit maker" is the international exporters who are running up a rally in cotton despite a glut in the market! These devious traders have already exported 75% of the cotton produce exceeding export limits set by the government and made a killing as Indian cotton was the cheapest with a depressed rupee in a volatile market. Now most of the cotton left is of low quality requiring greater amount of processing and cleaning for use.

The Commerce ministry is interested in maximizing exports but they also have sufficient expertise to spot malpractice and stop it in its tracks. The Indian farmers may be interested only in profit but the Indian government that provides subsidies to these farmers is interested in the welfare of all Indian's - not just exporters or cotton farmers .

A few fact checks
1) India produces close to 35 million bales of cotton of which 9-10 mn is being exported. That is no where chose to 75%
2) If there is glut in the market, Indian textile companies should be very happy with availability
3) If high cotton was being exported, were the Indian exporters sleeping and hence decided not to purchase the high quality cotton
4) I seriously doubt if it would be profitable to buy cotton in India, pay tax, pay for transport to China and back to India and still make a profit

The strategy to "buy and hold" stock is valid legal and legitimate strategy in most of the world including India. Holding stock is frankly not cheap. If Indian textile companies are concerned that the price of cotton will be high later in the year, they should buy now instead of asking for an export ban. Who is stopping it from doing that? This export ban exists as it is cheaper to pay off commerce ministry officials rather than pay a fair price to the producer.

This whole subsidy business is a farce. Export ban will only subsidize for Indian textile manufacturer who is not forced to pass on the benefit to Indian customers. Can GoI decide on textile prices next or export ban for textiles next so that it is cheaper for all Indians? Export ban is an additional burden on farmers who now have to decide if there is going to be an export ban or not. By the way, subsidy is paid out of taxes which are again collected from Indian citizens and firms including the farmers. It is not charity given by rich folks.

1. The current crop has been calculated to be 34 million bales of which 26 million bales have already been consumed (this is domestic consumption and export). The government expects another 3-4 million bales in April and May. So this makes it 75% consumption already. I may have erroneously stated 75% export but as it stands 75% of the cotton crop has been consumed by the month of March! The current stock-in-position figures indicate 3 million bales against the 6-7 million bales requirement in the domestic industry indicating a significant slowdown. Further the stock that is left is coarse cotton which is not good for export. The government export target for cotton this year has been 8.5 million bales while the 9.5 million bales were exported and new export orders showed a record 13 million bales for export with 85% of this being sent to China!
2. A glut on the "international" market doesn't imply a "glut" in the domestic markets! Domestic prices are always lower than international prices while profiteering traders would like to export everything to rake up their margins.
3. First your say that "holding stock is not cheap" and then you say why doesn't the Indian textile company purchase more ? You answered your own question!
4. You clearly know little about the freight rates on shipping to China. The Chinese have such a large surplus with most countries that it is very cheap to ship and store goods at Chinese ports. It costs more to transport cotton from Mumbai to Pune than it does to ship that cotton to China and let it sit there for a few months. The cotton is then sold from the Chinese port directly on the international market - not brought back to India!

Here are some facts for you -

Hoarding is "illegal" in every country including USA and especially in India. Stockpiling for legitimate use is completely different from hoarding for profit. This latter is considered a crime, the former is seen as a operating expense! Further this export ban was not "asked" by the textile industry, it was implemented by the commerce ministry to stop criminal practices by exporters! As for paying "fair price", why don't the traders first pay the "fair" price to the farmers or allow farmers to export their produce directly if you are so concerned about the "farmers" !

If subsidies are such a farce why doesn't the government spend the 500 billion rupees on the Indian middle class. I'm sure it would be a novel and entertaining change to see the middle class taxpayer actually "getting" something for all the decades they've paid taxes for! And no taxes are not "charity" - they are "legalized robbery" where hard working people are forced to hand over their money to the government or go to jail while ignorant, lazy and unproductive bums in villages get benefits! Which farmer is paying tax? Can you name even one?? Farming is tax free, dont you know that ??

1. Why should the prices in domestic market be lower than international market? Indian textile companies are free to buy from either the domestic market or international market. The benefit that Indian textile manufacturers have in buying in India is saving on the transportation costs.
2. If the Chinese are holding stock, why cannot India manufacturers hold for their own consumption? It might not be cheap but it is definitely cheaper than letting the stock be exported to China and being stored there and then imported back again.
3.First off, you start by comparing transportation by sea with road/rail transportation. Secondly, surface transportation is expensive in India because India taxes fuel like its a narcotic (nearly 35 - 40/litre of petrol is actually goes to government as tax). Third, if we export to China, then our trade deficit with the Chinese will reduce.
4. If the Chinese trader is smart enough to buy stock in anticipation of future price rise and Indian textile manufacturer is stupid enough not to buy as per his requirement, why is the government interfering at the expense of Indian Farmer?
5. "Hoarding" is defined as buying stock in order to manipulate the market and is very difficult to prove. Indian Govt did not ban accusing Chinese of hoarding. It did it saying that there is not enough stock for domestic industry. Buy and hold strategy is a very valid strategy which in most of the world. (Also, stop pretending to be naive in your thinking that there was no lobbying effort from textile industry. No government action ever happens without a lobby behind it)
6. Regarding taxes: Indian farmers do not pay income tax but pay a lot of indirect taxes including the 30 - 40/litre on fuel, service taxes and sales taxes. Even the sanitation stuff like soaps and washing powders have 30 - 40% tax component in them. I am all for reducing the indirect taxes and collecting taxes from farmers. But is disingenuous to claim that there should be an export ban because farmers do not pay income tax.
7. Farmers not getting a fair price: A farmer if he is not getting a fair price in one year, will not grow the same crop the next year. That is how the market functions. If the farmer feels that the traders are exploiting him, he is free to form a farmers association which will ensure a fair price for his produce. However, to expert that a farmer who sold off his cotton in Jan at x and if march prices is 1.5x and that he should be compensated for the difference is absurd.

1. Prices are lower domestically in every country and particularly in India because India is a “planned” economy where prices are regulated and profiteering through black markets, hoarding etc does not take place! This is why there are things like “rationing” and “price controls”. A farmer cannot go to the market and say they are going to sell 1 kg of rice at 100 rupees and no less. A “fair price” is set based on demand and supply consideration so that neither the farmer nor the merchant can exploit the other! This is basic in an economy like India’s. This is why even during years of massive yeids farmers can be assured a certain “base” price, unlike a true “capitalist” market where the farmer is forced to sell at throwaway rates!
2. You are confusing the two issues. Firstly, the Indian textile industry is mostly made up of SMEs that invest in inventory based on orders. Without committed orders no mill is going to stock its inventory. Inventory is usually purchased on a credit basis making it more expensive. Secondly, it is the traders who are the ones shipping the cotton and hoarding them in Chinese ports causing a supply drop in the domestic market. For Indian companies to “store” cotton as a reserve individually would not make sense – this is why it is the Chinese “government” that is making a strategic reserve, not the Chinese textile industry.

3. It doesn’t matter if it is sea or rail or road to the trader, the point is it the price of moving goods from point A to point B. In this regard it is cheaper to move goods to and from China than it is to move goods inside India. Next, if the Indian trader ships it to the Chinese ports, this doesn’t count as an “export”, unless somebody buys it. The cost of logistics is implied in the price and even so, these traders would be able to sell it a profit from a Chinese port.
4. There is no “anticipation”, the price rise is “created” and that’s why it’s illegal. The Indian government has every right to interfere because this is market manipulation and hurting the local textile industry. The Indian textile industry is one of the largest employers in India and a significant contributor to the Indian government in terms of taxes and foreign exchange revenue, unlike the Indian farmer who is a drain.
5. The Indian government didn’t accuse the “Chinese” of hoarding, it banned the export of cotton because it suspected hoarding by Indian traders. The numbers clearly show that as these traders were busy trying to export as much as possible, domestic supplies dried up. The sudden surge in export orders caused the Commerce ministry to impose a ban quickly to check the depleted stocks. “hoarding” is the suspected motive, domestic supply pressures are the result. (How can there be “lobbying” when the Indian textile association itself was caught unawares ? And do you think Sharad Pawar is a saint to oppose it if there was lobbying?)
6. An entire village in India consumes probably less than what one upper middle class family spends and therefore contributes as “sales” taxes. The collection of “sales taxes” is primarily an urban phenomena and further it is the urban taxpayer who has to pay the higher VAT and sales taxes compared to the rural farmer who purchases very little and from small unorganized retail shops that impose a smaller tax. I never said that the motive for the export ban was because farmers don’t pay taxes, it is disingenuous to claim that the subsidies enjoyed by farmers is “meaningless” when the Indian government is spending most of its budget on subsidies and welfare projects that benefit only the farmers – whos GDP contribution is negligible.

7. Farmers grow what they know how to grow, regardless of “price”. They either “grow” cotton or don’t do anything at all in most of these places. Do you think farming is like gardening where you can just switch what you are growing depending on the market conditions ? Most Indian farmers don’t have skills or expertise to grow produce based on “market conditions”, they grow cotton because they’ve been growing cotton for centuries. Even today, Bt. Cotton is not trusted by most of the cotton farmers because they are unfamiliar with it! Switching to alternate crops is difficult and is more risky than letting their fields rest as any “planting” requires money, time, effort and labor. You have a very simplistic understanding of the agricultural markets. No farmers “association” can do anything, the traders control the demand and supply and if the farmers don’t sell at the government rate, they simply won’t buy (usually they try to buy below the government rate!). Price depends on many dynamics that is why the government sets a fair price. Farmer’s “association” are good ideas but in reality farmer’s “association” can do little to determine what price the farmers get as there is one domestic price and there is the international price. Both domestic and international traders buy from the domestic market at one rate, depending on quality slight variations are possible but you can’t expect a farmer to be compensated at “international prices”. A simple way to check this price discrepancy is to go to any village near a big city and ask the price of basic commodity being grown like wheat, rice etc and compare it to the price paid just 100kms away in the retail stores. Usually there is a price difference of at least 30%.

1. Confusing food grains with cash crops. There is no minimum support price for fruits, vegetables, chillies, coconuts, bananas etc. nor is there a need for them. MSP exists primarily for essential commodities such as rice, wheat, sugar and some other commodities.
2. If it is Chinese government is making a strategic reserve, then let Indian government make a strategic reserve. Why should there be a ban for making a strategic reserve? Let the Indian government which so loves the SMEs make the strategic reserve. My suspicion is that it is the large manufacturers such as Raymonds,Arvind mills etc who are determining the policy of a ban.
3. Move the cotton via shipping from JNPT to Cochin, I assure you it is cheaper than moving it to China.
4. Where is the proof that this price rise is "created"? In the dreamland of some bureaucrat in the commerce ministry? The ministry if it is aware of such market manipulation should have made the evidence public. You know why it is not public? Because no such thing is happening.
Now you have come to the crux of the matter. Textile industry is one of the largest employers in India. For protecting this industry and hence vote back for politicians, India has banned the export not some hoarding as has been stated. How come when 60% to 70% of cotton has been purchased domestically, is it realistic to expect multiple traders to come together with 30% of cotton to manipulate the price.
5. If domestic supplies are drying up, why doesn't the Indian government create a reserve or provide cheap storage space. How is the ban an effective mechanism? Last I heard, the Australians are planning to increase cotton production because of the stupid Indian ban. This will in effect ensure that India loses on an overall basis.
Sharad pawar is no saint neither is Anand Mishra. But what matters is whether is ban is beneficial to Indians or not.
6 & 7. You have absolutely no clue on Indian villages. The villages in Gujarat/Maharashtra are very different from say Orissa/Jharkhand. I have seen farmers move from cotton to Chillies to tobacco in 3 seasons in AP.
Yes there is a difference of 30%. However, have you also compared the rents in cities with places 100 kms away. Its 80% cheaper! Labor is probably 50% cheaper. Retail places in cities have to consider transportation cost, multiple links in supply chain etc
The Government interference in pricing is the main cause of concern. For example, all fruits an vegetables in India have to be sold through the mandi's. A Karnataka farmer who might get a better price for his vegetables in Maharashtra can not sell in Maharashtra. Why? Because government has mandated only traders can do it. A AP farmer cannot sell food grains in Karnataka. This kind of government interference results in farmers dumping their produce (recently seen in Nashik) instead of sending it to other regions/states.
Regarding indirect taxes: Significant part of this is collected from the manufacturer / large distributor rather than end of chain retailer. Ever wondered why HUL and P&G are focused on rural markets?
Also, export ban only reduces GDP contribution by Indian farmers.

1. Confusing food grains with cash crops. There is no minimum support price for fruits, vegetables, chillies, coconuts, bananas etc. nor is there a need for them. MSP exists primarily for essential commodities such as rice, wheat, sugar and some other commodities.
2. If it is Chinese government is making a strategic reserve, then let Indian government make a strategic reserve. Why should there be a ban for making a strategic reserve? Let the Indian government which so loves the SMEs make the strategic reserve. My suspicion is that it is the large manufacturers such as Raymonds,Arvind mills etc who are determining the policy of a ban.
3. Move the cotton via shipping from JNPT to Cochin, I assure you it is cheaper than moving it to China.
4. Where is the proof that this price rise is "created"? In the dreamland of some bureaucrat in the commerce ministry? The ministry if it is aware of such market manipulation should have made the evidence public. You know why it is not public? Because no such thing is happening.
Now you have come to the crux of the matter. Textile industry is one of the largest employers in India. For protecting this industry and hence vote back for politicians, India has banned the export not some hoarding as has been stated. How come when 60% to 70% of cotton has been purchased domestically, is it realistic to expect multiple traders to come together with 30% of cotton to manipulate the price.
5. If domestic supplies are drying up, why doesn't the Indian government create a reserve or provide cheap storage space. How is the ban an effective mechanism? Last I heard, the Australians are planning to increase cotton production because of the stupid Indian ban. This will in effect ensure that India loses on an overall basis.
Sharad pawar is no saint neither is Anand Mishra. But what matters is whether is ban is beneficial to Indians or not.
6 & 7. You have absolutely no clue on Indian villages. The villages in Gujarat/Maharashtra are very different from say Orissa/Jharkhand. I have seen farmers move from cotton to Chillies to tobacco in 3 seasons in AP.
Yes there is a difference of 30%. However, have you also compared the rents in cities with places 100 kms away. Its 80% cheaper! Labor is probably 50% cheaper. Retail places in cities have to consider transportation cost, multiple links in supply chain etc
The Government interference in pricing is the main cause of concern. For example, all fruits an vegetables in India have to be sold through the mandi's. A Karnataka farmer who might get a better price for his vegetables in Maharashtra can not sell in Maharashtra. Why? Because government has mandated only traders can do it. A AP farmer cannot sell food grains in Karnataka. This kind of government interference results in farmers dumping their produce (recently seen in Nashik) instead of sending it to other regions/states.
Regarding indirect taxes: Significant part of this is collected from the manufacturer / large distributor rather than end of chain retailer. Ever wondered why HUL and P&G are focused on rural markets?
Also, export ban only reduces GDP contribution by Indian farmers.

"The commerce ministry seems to have been worried that short-term export commitments were more than India could comfortably meet. It feared a spike in domestic cotton prices, followed by hoarding. This would hurt India’s textiles industry, which is not in the best financial health and is a huge employer."

But in the next breath, the Economist's gifted (iphone-bearing, furiously-tweeting) teenage writer tells us that "it seems doubtful that India’s ban is even in its own narrow interests."

Would anyone care to examine the logic in this? Why would I sell food if I may not have enough to feed my own family?

And where does the Economist get the idea that when I do something I am acting for the benefit of the world - defending freedom, democracy and fair play, and being "a good world citizen", but when you do it, you are just looking after "your own narrow interests"?

We had the same argument about China's Rare Earth minerals. China is worried about shortfalls, environmental degredation, unstable markets and it's own long-term needs. But setting export quotas is "un-American" because you are looking after your interests instead of mine. I do the same, but that's different because I'm white.

And of course, it's all China's fault. The Economist has no valid information, no evidence, but is still happy to implicate China for its cotton demand and make wild accusations of stockpiling "a mountain" of (Indian) cotton.

India's ban on cotton is entirely because "its own surplus is being whisked away to create a safety buffer for the Middle Kingdom." Really?

And, dear Miss Economist writer, what would you do if you needed more of something? Stop buying? Why should China apologise for the development of its nation and economy? If a country needs raw materials, it needs them and buys them. By what foolish reasoning or what juvenile ideology do you condemn a country for that? The US is wasting 30% of the world's oil to fuel its imperial military; why not focus on that?

". . . a report predicting that Australia would double its cotton exports between 2010 and 2013."

So the world will not end after all? Another country can fill the gap? No big deal? Then why waste our time with such a shallow article?

"A vicious circle of price rises, stockpiling and export bans does not make sense in the medium term for any commodity."

So India, being fearful of a shortage for even its own domestic industry and employment, will now be responsible for "a vicious circle of . . ."? God.

And just so it doesn't go unnoticed, Ghandi was more than correct when he claimed "exploitative terms" the British forced onto India. The British Empire virtually destroyed India (and many other nations and economies), but the Economist is still in Imperial mode. Sacrifice yourself for what is in my best interest. Imperialistic, supremacist, white. Well-done.

"Behaviour that may be rational for individual actors can cause chaos if everyone copies it."

"The uninformed, one-dimensional, jingoistic, ideological, juvenile, capitalist-free market, China-bashing nonsense that the Economist publishes, would cause chaos if everyone copied it", this is exactly what I would agree with some articles Economist publishes.

One good thing though, comments like yours give much more broader view about any issue than covered by the article.

I think the writer was referring to the fact that Indians are naturally suspicious of China. The article didn't assign any blame on China whatsoever. If anything he stated that this policy is not in India's self interest

Wow, just curiously, why would you, obviously a Communist read the Economist?

"Would anyone care to examine the logic in this? Why would I sell food if I may not have enough to feed my own family?"

Not even close to a realistic comparison. You should be able to find many textbooks on economics online. That is if your government allows you to view them ...

"And of course, it's all China's fault. The Economist has no valid information, no evidence, but is still happy to implicate China for its cotton demand and make wild accusations of stockpiling "a mountain" of (Indian) cotton."

The author never implied any blame. You perhaps are overly sensitive to reference of your country? Should no publication mention China simply to appease your nationalistic sentiments? This paragraph was used to demonstrate the reasoning of the Indian officials for putting the ban into effect.

"And just so it doesn't go unnoticed, Ghandi was more than correct when he claimed "exploitative terms" the British forced onto India. The British Empire virtually destroyed India (and many other nations and economies), but the Economist is still in Imperial mode. Sacrifice yourself for what is in my best interest. Imperialistic, supremacist, white. Well-done."

Why does being white have anything to do with it? You should calm down son, you don't want to have an aneurysm there. Generally speaking, when debating or commenting, you should try and disprove the facts, not attack the sources motives. Doing so demonstrates you have very little to support your argument.

"So the world will not end after all? Another country can fill the gap? No big deal? Then why waste our time with such a shallow article?"

Because some people find this informative.

And, dear Miss Economist writer,"

Sexist much?

"what would you do if you needed more of something? Stop buying? Why should China apologise for the development of its nation and economy? If a country needs raw materials, it needs them and buys them. By what foolish reasoning or what juvenile ideology do you condemn a country for that? The US is wasting 30% of the world's oil to fuel its imperial military; why not focus on that?"

I think you have misunderstood some of the fundamentals of the article. It seems you are contriving to attack the Economist merely for the sake of it.

The Economist has written articles on U.S military fuel consumption. This one happens to be about a ban on cotton exports in India. Must every article on the Economist be about how China is so great and the U.S so bad?

The truth is you either have a very bad understanding of English, are simply attacking the Economist for the sake of it, are an idiot or all of the above. I felt that you should know you are an idiot and know that other people know you are idiot. I managed to educate myself leaving home at the age of fifteen and working thereafter, what is your excuse for your eye-watering idiocy?

Aside from those criticisms, a reasonable coherent offering, I hope the PRC pay you more than ten cents for that one.

Creating a ban on an agricultural product without informing the respective minister of agriculture?
And to think that people actually believe that India will prove to be a future world power.
I put my trust far more in Brazil than India

How on earth can you make agricultural policies work if the minister in charge is not informed of economic changes made by other government ministers that directly effect agriculture?
I suggest you do not make assumptions on my nationality - you may be surprised.

Mazo's comments show a substantial lack of understanding of the realtions of trade and government. A minister of agriculture would have a great interest in the well-being of his consituents and how policy affects them.

Indian agricultural polices work on the model of "self-sufficiency" not on import export consideration or to satisfy the profit margins of traders and exporters.

The primary aim of the "agriculture" ministry is "agriculture" and enabling Indian farmers produce more with adequate supply of raw materials like water, fertilizers etc. The management of exports and imports is not his purview and shouldn't be his purview as imports and exports are governed by other factors like domestic supply and demand considerations, price volatility and foreign exchange considerations.

The price of fertilizer, the price of manure, the amount of water resources available and the development of new seeds and technology have nothing to do with the international prices of cotton, wheat, rice or any such thing. How is building a canal or a barrage to store water for irrigation contingent on the dynamics of the international cotton market ??

Well I would be more inclined to accept criticism for my "substantial lack of understanding" if it was accompanied by a more insightful argument beyond the banal "well-being of his constituents" argument.

As I've already mentioned, agricultural trade in India is extremely regulated and Indian farmers can't just directly export their produce or put it on the open market at their will. There are price and trade barriers and regulations that limit the sale of items and their prices. The real "profit" to be had is by the large exporters of cotton who would stand to make substantial gains considering the depressed Indian rupee and the cheap sourcing of Indian cotton from the domestic market.

Again, the minister doesn't "manage commodities", he manages Agricultural policy. He would have been informed eventually but the decision rests with the ministry of commerce that sets exports targets based on the quantity of production and the projected local demand to benefit the entire country.
Just because prices are high and markets are favorable doesn't imply that India export its entire crop of cotton to the Chinese and then again let the Indian textile industry "import" cotton at international prices driving up its costs and making it uncompetitive internationally and making textiles and cotton expensive domestically!

America had stiff cotton export tariffs for a long time for precisely this reason. In fact, this is a perfect example of "The American School" of trade policy, which the world bank, among others, tried to push on the developing world before the Washington Consensus.

China also subsidizes its cotton industry heavily for precisely the reason of trying to reduce industrial inputs. And yes, it is a terrible idea. I think the economist is too used to knocking down mercantilists, when there are other varieties of economic idiocy out there.